Increased commercial use of the Internet network raises the problem of funding this network.
On the Internet, it is very difficult or excessively costly to apply the charge-metering principles in use:
billing based on the connection time between two terminals at a given transmission rate and over a given distance. PA1 billing based on the quantity of data exchanged between two terminals and on the data-transmission rate.
The Internet has no central management and users are not listed by any administrative entity, omissions resulting from the cooperative, decentralized character of this kind of continuously-expanding network.
In contradistinction to telephone or other types of data-transmission networks, such as those using the X25 protocol, the Internet employs an IP completely sessionless protocol, which carries data in data-packet form.
The two foregoing characteristics impair the ability to finance data transmission on the Internet. For this reason, the network is normally paid for by billing access only at one physical point on the network. Such billing is either effected as a lump-sum payment or is based on the quantity of data transmitted to, or received from, the entirety of the network. Furthermore, the telecommunications operators which run independent systems on the Internet must develop commercial agreement and partnership strategies in order to accept retransmission from third-party sites through their own sites. Circuit-routing strategies derive from these first strategies.
This charge-metering system does not allow fair, equitable billing of data transmission based on the path traveled and the transmission rate.
Using the current charge-metering system, data transmission from Paris to Tokyo is billed in an amount equal to transmission from Paris to Lyon. However, the path over which the data are carried in the first case requires a more extensive, more costly infrastructure for transport purposes.
Accordingly, the current charge-metering system does not take into account the exact economic cost of the data-transmission service.
In addition, this system does not allow preference to be given to some packets over others in accordance with a simple method, and, therefore, the provision of enhanced service quality or higher speed in return for higher rates of payment.
Moreover, it does not allow equitable charge-metering of certain packets requiring special, more expensive treatment for authentication, encryption, and management of the network. Nor does it allow simple billing of total access to several computers belonging to the network and capable of delivering inexpensive services. It does not permit billing similar to the "kiosk"-type billing practiced on the Minitel network.